Subscribe to Our Mailing List

Concerning the Dialogue Between the Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonian Churches

A Memorandum of the Sacred Community of Mount Athos

The article of the co-president of the Joint Commission for
Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonian
Churches, the Most Reverend Damascene, Bishop of Switzerland,
which was entitled "The Theological Dialogue of the Orthodox
Churches and the Oriental Orthodox Churches: Thoughts and
Perspectives" [Episkepsis #516 / March 31, 1995]
gave impetus to more disquiet on the part of the Holy Mountain
regarding the development of this Theological Dialogue.

It is well known that a hurried union is being forced upon the
Orthodox and the Non-Chalcedonians in spite of the yet existing
dogmatic differences and of unsettled ecclesiological problems,
such as, for example, the unconditional acceptance of the Decrees
of the Ecumenical Councils and of their sacredness and
universality by the Non-Chalcedonians.

The Administrative Council of the Sacred Community, in its
report concerning the Dialogue of Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonians,
dated February 1, 1994, expresses its reservations about the
course taken by this theological dialogue; in short, it is not
guiding to a union in the Truth, one acceptable from the orthodox
viewpoint. Such reservations have also been expressed by eminent
professors of the Theological Schools and by other churchmen in
special studies on this specific issue.

On such important matters, wide discussion is mandated within
the fold of the church body, for its information, so that the
consciousness of the Church may function freely, without
hindrance.

Such a discussion, however, is described by the Bishop of
Switzerland in his aforementioned article as "criticism
expressed by certain religious circles to arouse doubts over
issues which are completely covered by the theology expressed in
the two 'Joint Statements'" [p. 15]. From this description
it appears that His Grace understands the theological Dialogue as
a subject only for certain theologians, experts of dogmatics, who
are quite indifferent to the disquiet of the pious. If indeed the
people of God is upset by the theology of the Joint Declarations,
is it not obligatory that a synodical decision by the Church be
made about their orthodoxy? And such a decision should be made in
a very short time, lest the disquieting development of this
theological dialogue based on a possibly false theology proceed
further.

Having become aware of such a danger, i.e., union with the
Non-Chalcedonians founded upon un-Orthodox presuppositions, we
are in constant unease and sacred indignation. The Faith is in
danger, and we cannot trifle with things which cannot be trifled
with. We are aware of our responsibility for the protection and
preservation without innovations of the doctrine and ecclesiology
of the holy Church as we have received them from the holy
Fathers.

Therefore we denounce the Joint Commission of this Dialogue
for all the aberrations which we have noted hereafter and
verified to:

His All-holiness Bartholomew, the Ecumenical Patriarch
and his holy and sacred Synod.

The Most Blessed Primates of the ancient and other
Patriarchates and the holy and sacred Synods of their hierarchs.

The Most Blessed Primates of the Holy Autocephalous
Orthodox Churches and their holy and sacred synods of hierarchs.

All the sacred Orthodox clergy and pious people in all
the world.

Doing this, we confess that we are only moved by a feeling of
responsibility.

+ + +

I) For the bringing into question by the Joint
Commission of the continual consciousness of our Church that it
constitutes the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, when
the Commission accepted the statement: "Both families have
always preserved faithfully the same authentic Orthodox
Christological Faith and the uninterrupted continuity of the
apostolic tradition." [II Joint Statement, paragraph 9]

II) For the attack upon the validity and authority of the Holy
Ecumenical Councils by the decision of the Joint Commission that
the Anti-Chalcedon heresiarchs Dioscorus, Jacob, Severus, etc. be
considered not heretical but Orthodox in their thinking. The
consciousness of the Orthodox Church recognizes that
infallibility and authority in the Holy Spirit is in the
Ecumenical Councils and refuses to accept the possibility of
revising the decisions of an Ecumenical Council by another
Ecumenical Council without the latter Council being considered as
an heretical conventicle, such as the Latrocinium of Ephesus.

III) For the decision of the Joint Commission concerning the
possibility of lifting an anathema placed by an Ecumenical
Council. This is an unacceptable decision, alien to the sound
mind of the Church, which offends the fundamental consciousness
of the Church concerning the authority of the Ecumenical
Councils.

IV) For the radical disagreement of the Joint Commission with
the teachings of the Holy Fathers as regards the Christology of
the Non-Chalcedonians. The Fathers (Maximus the Confessor,
Sophronius of Jerusalem, Anastasius of Sinai, John Damascene,
Photius the Great, Theodore the Studite, Theodosius the
Cenobiarch, etc.) term their Christology heretical, but the Joint
Commission considers it to be Orthodox and a continuation of the
ancient apostolic Faith of the Church.

V) For the acceptance by the Joint Commission that the
contemporary Non-Chalcedonians believe the same Christology as we
do. However, this is not apparent in the Joint Statement (1989,
1990) in which there are many expressions susceptible to a
monophysitic interpretation similar to the teaching of Severus,
"The one unified theanthropic nature" [I Joint
Statement] and "the natures are distinguished only in
thought" [II Joint (Common) Declaration]. It was requested
that the Non- Chalcedonians elucidate these terms in order to
dispel any uncertainty so that we could be certain they
understood them in an Orthodox sense. Unfortunately no answer was
given.

VI) For the limiting by the Joint Commission of requiring only
the condemnation of the extreme Monophysitism of Eutyches by the
Non-Chalcedonians. According to the teachings of the Holy Fathers
and the conscience of the worshipping Church, even the moderate
Monophysitism of Dioscorus and Severus is a heresy. The
comparison of certain formulations in the Joint Statements with
corresponding expressions of contemporary Non-Chalcedonian
Patriarchs and theologians proves their adherence to moderate
Monophysitism.

VII) For the misleading declaration of the Bishop of
Switzerland that the Non-Chalcedonians accept the teachings of
our Ecumenical Councils [Episkepsis #5 / 16, March 31,
1995, p. 13] in spite of their refusal to accept the Orthodox
interpretation of the Definitions of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,
and Seventh Ecumenical Councils as their own interpretation also.
We will give word for word the text of the Joint Statement which
supposedly supports their acceptance of the teachings of these
Ecumenical Councils. "As for the four succeeding Councils of
the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox declare that for them, the
above points one through seven are also the teachings of the four
later Councils of the Orthodox Church, while at the same time the
Oriental Orthodox consider this declaration of the Orthodox as
their interpretation. With this mutual understanding, the
Orientals responded to it positively." We ask: Can it be
concluded from this declaration that the Non-Chalcedonians accept
without reservation the teachings of our Ecumenical Councils?

VIII) For the novel theory of the Join Commission that
"the formal proclamation of their ecumenicity [i.e., of the
Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils by the Non-
Chalcedonians] was considered generally that it would be a
natural consequence of the restoration of full communion or that
it could be evaluated in the future." [Episkepsis
#516 / March 31, 1995, p. 15]. In other words, the union will
take place without their recognizing the Ecumenical Councils; but
after the union they probably will be accepted or the matter will
be put up for their evaluation. We ask: Which Orthodox bishop,
who gave an oath to defend the Ecumenical and Local Councils,
will accept intercommunion with bishops who will discuss if the
Ecumenical Councils are Ecumenical?

The doubtfulness of their acceptance by the Non-Chalcedonians
is proved in the declaration of the Coptic Patriarch Shenouda III
before the Inter-Orthodox Commission in Chambesy: "As for
the Ecumenical Councils, we accept the first three ... . . We
reject the Council of Chalcedon... . I can say very frankly
that all the Oriental cannot accept the Council of Chalcedon. . .
. You have Seven Ecumenical Councils. If you should lose one, it
should be no great loss to you" [from Metropolitan
Chrysostom (Constantinides) of Myra, Dialogue of the Orthodox
Church with the Ancient Oriental Churches, in the periodical Theologia,
Athens 1980, Vol. 51, Issue 1, page 229-230].

IX) For the tendency of concealing events and giving
misleading information to the body of the Church by the Joint
Commissionactions extremely provocative to church
sensibilitiesas proved in the following:

A) The Minutes of the official meetings of the Joint
Commission for Dialogue have yet to be published so that the
hierarchy of the Church, the sacred clergy and the pious people
be informed and aware.

B) By orders of the local Churches, the Joint Commission
assembled in its Fourth Meeting, and on the ground of what was
accepted and agreed upon in the Joint Statements, it reached the
decision of the possibility for lifting the anathemas.
[Announcement of the Fourth Meeting, Episkepsis 498,
November 30, 1993, p. 4, 6]. We ask: Which local Synod gave such
an order or on the grounds of which Synodical decisions did the
Primates of the Churches approve the texts of the Joint
Statements and bless the decision concerning the lifting of the
anathemas, based upon the theology of the Joint Statements as
though upon a firm Orthodox foundation? Let such decisions of the
Sacred Synods be published. Otherwise it will be understood that
the Joint Commission proceeds to take successive decisions
without first securing Synodical approval for its prior
enactments and decisions.

C) The Most Reverend Bishop of Switzerland affirms: "all
the above mentioned local Orthodox and Oriental churches welcomed
with enthusiasm not only the positive results of the Theological
Dialogue but also the prospect for restoration of ecclesiastical
communion after a separation of fifteen centuries; they described
the complete agreement on Christological doctrine as an
historical event. . ." [Episkepsis #516 / March 31,
1955, p. 14]. This affirmation is in resounding contradiction to
concrete actions by the churches which testify the opposite.
Specifically we refer to:

1) The February 2, 1994 recommendation to the Sacred Synod of
the Synodical Committee on Dogmatic and Canonical Issues of the
Church of Greece, in which "The Committee proposes that the
Church of Greece not hasten to accept these 'Statements' and
considers the following as essential dogmatic conditions for the
union of the Non-Chalcedonians with the Orthodox Catholic Church:

a) The acceptance by the Non-Chalcedonians of the Defini-
nition of the Fourth Ecumenical Council...

b) the recognition of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh
Ecumenical Councils as being Ecumenical as well as their dogmatic
definitions without interpretive statements...

c) the discouragement of "concelebrations" or other
"manifestations (demonstrations) of common (joint)
worship"...

2) the December, 1994 submitted report of the Synodical
Theological committee of the Church of Russia to the Sacred Synod
of that Church's hierarchy, in which "The Synod of of
Hierarchs ... decided the following:

1) to approve the report of the Synodical Theological
committee;
2) to assess that the "Second Joint Statement and its
proposals to the Churches" cannot be considered a final
text...
3) the Synodical Theological Committee should undertake a
further study of the records of former meetings of the
theologians of both sides... After this, the Orthodox
Church of Russia will inform the Joint Commission for
Theological Dialogue of its opinion...
4) having in mind the necessity for the participation of the
people of God in this matter of firmly establishing the
union, which people, according to the words of the Encyclical
of the Patriarchs of the East, "is the guardian of
ancient piety", the Synod considers the time appropriate
for the organization of a discussion by the whole Church upon
this specific issue" [Episkepsis, 516, March
31, 1995, p. 16].

Has there not been a scandalous deception in the information
given to the people of God?

D) Bishops of Orthodox Churches have declared to us that they
had never been informed about events in this theological dialogue
and that they will never accept a union unless the
Non-Chalcedonians accept the Ecumenical Councils.

We ask: Can such an omission of informing the Bishops of the
Church who have a direct concern be justified, especially since
conciliar approval is an indispensable condition when dealing
with such serious issues?

X) For the decision of the Sacred Synod of the Church of
Romania as being alien to the mind of the Church, because this
decision:

A) considers that the anathemas were laid upon the heretics by
the Ecumenical Councils in a spirit lacking love, while today,
since love now exists, union can be accomplished. Such a way of
thinking directs a profound blasphemy against the Holy Spirit,
through Whose inspiration these decisions were made, and against
the sacred memory of the Holy Fathers, whom the Church calls
God-bearers, Mouths of the Word, Harps of the Spirit, etc.

B) proposes the substitution of the authority of an Ecumenical
Council by the unanimity of the local Sacred Synodsa new
first in the history of the Church.

C) approves the organizing of programs which will disseminate
amidst the people the decisions of the Joint Commission without
there having previously been a unanimous, pan-orthodox decision.
These present conditions are certainly grievous and harmful for
the pious Romanian people.

For this reason, our hearts are filled with unspeakable sorrow
for the Church of Romania.

XI) For the extremely disturbing decision of the Joint
Commission to purge the liturgical books of texts which refer to
the Non-Chalcedonians as heretical. The sacred services of many
holy confessors of the Faith, of many righteous Fathers, and
especially the Holy Fathers of the Fourth Council in Chalcedon
will be mutilated. The Synodicon of Orthodoxy will practically be
silenced. The Synaxaria (Lives) of many Saints will cease to be
read by the people of God.

We ask: Are all the texts referred to above simply ornamental
elements in Orthodox hymnology so that they can be painlessly and
harmlessly removed, or are they basic elements of Orthodoxy,
whose removal will cause the eradication of what we understand as
Orthodoxy?

As far as we are concerned, it would be an unacceptable
innovation with consequences for the very identity of the
Orthodox Church.

+ + +

All of the above, by denouncing them to the Venerable
Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Venerable Hierarchies of the
Orthodox Churches, the sacred clergy, and the pious people, we
seek the swiftest possible reestablishment of the Theological
Dialogue upon the right principles, so that the Orthodox will
preserve for themselves the Orthodox Faith unspoiled but also for
the Non-Chalcedonians, so that they will have the possibility of
return to the true Church of Christ, from which they have been
cut off for fifteen centuries.

We believe that with the Grace of Christ, the unremitting
endeavors of all the members of the Church will bring positive
results.

In the event, however, that the union will come about outside
of the only TruthGod forbidwe declare expressly and
categorically that the Holy Mountain will not accept such a false
union.